Crimes: animals; penalties for killing or causing serious physical harm to a police dog, police horse, or search and rescue dog; modify. Amends sec. 50c of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.50c).
HB4732 amends Michigan’s penal code section governing crimes against police dogs and police horses to add search and rescue dogs to the same protections. The bill defines a search and rescue dog as one trained for, being trained for, or actively engaged in a search and rescue operation, and it defines a search and rescue operation as an effort directed by a state or local agency to locate or rescue a lost, injured, or deceased person. Under the bill, a person may not intentionally kill or cause serious physical harm to a police dog, police horse, or search and rescue dog, may not intentionally cause physical harm to those animals, and may not intentionally harass or interfere with them while they are lawfully performing their duties.
The bill also creates or adjusts criminal penalties. Intentionally killing or causing serious physical harm to one of these animals is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine. Intentionally causing physical harm or interfering with the animal is generally a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and/or a $5,000 fine, but the offense becomes a felony punishable by up to 2 years and/or a $15,000 fine if it occurs while the person is committing a crime. A separate provision makes it a felony punishable by up to 2 years and/or a $10,000 fine to kill or seriously harm one of these animals while committing or attempting to commit a crime. The bill is titled “Dozer’s law” and would take effect 90 days after enactment.
The bill’s impact on state law is to expand existing protections in the Michigan penal code beyond police dogs and police horses to include search and rescue dogs, while preserving the ability to charge a person with any other offense committed during the same conduct. It would therefore increase criminal liability for harming or interfering with working search and rescue animals and align their legal protection more closely with that already afforded to law enforcement animals.
Based on the available record, there is no committee transcript or vote history showing debate or opposition, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from discussion or roll calls. The bill’s framing and title suggest a supportive, protective intent centered on working animals and public safety, with the main policy choice being whether search and rescue dogs should receive the same criminal-law protections as police dogs and police horses.
HB4732 would amend MCL 750.50c in the Michigan penal code to add search and rescue dogs to the list of protected working animals, alongside police dogs and police horses. It would create new definitions for search and rescue dog and search and rescue operation, prohibit intentional killing, serious physical harm, physical harm, harassment, and interference, and establish misdemeanor and felony penalties depending on the conduct and whether a crime is being committed. The bill would affect criminal defendants, law enforcement agencies, search and rescue teams, and handlers of working animals by expanding enforceable protections and penalties.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate to gauge support or opposition. The bill’s caption and “Dozer’s law” naming indicate a sympathetic, protective policy goal, and the text appears narrowly focused on extending existing animal-protection penalties to search and rescue dogs. In the absence of recorded opposition, the available context suggests a generally favorable posture toward the bill’s purpose.
The principal policy issue is the expansion of criminal penalties to cover search and rescue dogs, including whether those animals should be treated the same as police dogs and police horses under the penal code. Another possible point of discussion is the bill’s penalty structure, which distinguishes between intentional harm, interference, and conduct occurring during the commission of another crime. No specific objections, amendments, or opposing arguments are available in the provided record.